Every American knows and cherishes Dr. Anthony Fauci. He’s the kind man on television who issues daily instructions about what must be done to prevent immediate death everywhere: Toddlers should be ‘double-diapered’ to ensure that nothing unsanitary comes out of their mouth-holes, etc. etc.

As director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical advisor to the president, Fauci has used his remarkable administrative capabilities to funnel vast sums of taxpayer dollars into programs and initiatives that have shielded the public from the flu-like horrors of coronavirus. 

But has he always possessed such superhuman pandemic-response skills? Let us briefly survey his distinguished career as Chief Virus Fighter to see if we might be able to answer this serpentine riddle. 

Fifteen years ago, Fauci was summoned by the media to explain what the United States was going to do about the ‘bird flu’ crisis. What was bird flu? It was one of the worst potential pandemics in human history, with the World Health Organization projecting 7.4 million deaths globally as a “best-case scenario”. (They were close: Over a period of two years, around 150 people died from the scary flu strain, but that figure doesn’t include the innumerable Vietnamese farmers who starved to death after millions of their chickens were forcibly culled by health authorities.)

Everyone was understandably worried but luckily Fauci had a solution: Let’s load up on Tamiflu. Developed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche, the antiviral drug was widely hailed for its life-saving properties after it was credited with successfully quelling a bird flu outbreak among Dutch farmers in 2003. 

During an appearance on C-SPAN in October 2005, Fauci claimed that the United States was “as prepared or better prepared than any other country” to deal with the impending mass casualty event, although he stressed that America’s survival would depend on more than just Tamiflu. 

“Vaccines, Tamiflu, public health measures, surveillance capabilities – things like that,” Fauci said, explaining what would be used to beat back the avian plague once it reached America’s shores.

He also elaborated on the health benefits of Roche’s wonder drug, claiming that it could "decrease the number of days of symptoms of the standard seasonal flu." If taken regularly as a prophylaxis, Tamiflu could even prevent infection, Fauci claimed. 

While acknowledging that there was no conclusive data showing that Tamiflu was effective against bird flu, Fauci stated that “we assume it will work” and that “there’s a reasonable assumption that it will work.”

Curiously, Fauci was less optimistic about Tamiflu’s bird flu-fighting powers when he was called to testify before the House Committee on International Relations just three months later, in January 2006. 

As NPR reported at the time, he still supported stockpiling enormous amounts of Tamiflu – in fact, Fauci wanted enough pills to be able to medicate 25% of the country’s population. But, probably as a minor legal formality, he didn’t want lawmakers to get the wrong idea and view the drug as a silver bullet. 

“We have no hard scientific data of how well this antiviral will perform under the conditions of a pandemic,” he told Congress, adding: "What this antiviral does is diminish the duration of symptoms by approximately a day and a half.”

(As a quick aside: The NPR article also quoted Dr. Frederick Hayden of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who insisted that Tamiflu “can provide a great deal of benefit” if given to patients before they develop severe flu symptoms. Although the article doesn’t mention it, Hayden was a paid consultant for Roche until at least 2004. NPR has the best expert commentaries.)

Fast-foward to April 2009: In response to the “public health emergency” created by an outbreak of H1N1 ‘swine flu’, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for Tamiflu. Maybe you have heard of EUAs? They have become very trendy in the last year or so. 

Anyway, Roche received emergency approval to manufacture Tamiflu to “treat and prevent influenza in children under 1 year of age,” while GlaxoSmithKline was charged with pumping out a Tamiflu variant designed for adult consumption. 

On April 29 – two days after Tamiflu’s EUA was issued – Fauci once again graced Congress with his presence, this time testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. When asked to provide an update on America’s pricey treasure chest of Tamiflu, and whether it would be useful in defeating the new Swine Menace, Fauci said: “Thankfully, the currently circulating 2009 H1N1 flu virus is sensitive to the two major antiviral drugs in our Strategic National Stockpile, Tamiflu and Relenza [the name for ‘adult’ Tamiflu].”

In layman’s terms: Fauci told the US Senate that Tamiflu was still a powerful weapon in America’s anti-pandemic arsenal.

Fauci was insistent. In August 2009, he said that Tamiflu had proven benefits when battling influenza, and urged its use among high-risk groups, particularly infants and pregnant women:

This was just four months after Fauci briefed the Senate. But by then his Tamiflu narrative was already spiraling the sewage drain. 

It was really bad. So bad that the FDA directed Roche to state on the drug’s label: “Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.” 

The FDA explained that clinical trials for Tamiflu “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo.”

It wasn’t that Tamiflu was just borderline useless: There were also concerns, made public by the FDA, that the drug may be linked to potentially fatal heart problems. 

This is not really what you want to hear after spending $1.5 billion stockpiling Tamiflu over the past four years as part of the country’s pandemic preparedness plan. 

Does the Tamiflu Tale end here, with transparent fraud and heart failure? Nein. Things became discernably more embarrassing as reality caught up with Fauci’s “antiviral” pill-peddling.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a globally-respected independent medical research organization, revealed in 2014 that there was little or no evidence that Tamiflu was effective against influenza. For half a decade, Roche had hidden clinical trial data from the public. But once this information was reluctantly handed over, their miracle drug was exposed as snake oil.

It was bad: 

Tamiflu (the antiviral drug oseltamivir) shortens symptoms of influenza by half a day, but there is no good evidence to support claims that it reduces admissions to hospital or complications of influenza.

$1.5 billion for a pill that curtails symptoms by a whole 12 hours. That's more than 100% less effective than Fauci's already-underwhelming claim that Tamiflu reduces the length of flu symptoms by a whopping "day and a half.”

A year later, an article published by Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health (NIH) described Tamiflu’s fall from grace as a “fiasco” and urged for a return to evidence-based public health policy:

A cocktail of pandemic panic, publicity propaganda, and scientific misconduct turned a new medicine with only modest efficacy into a blockbuster. It appears that the multiple regulatory checks and balances gave way as science lost its primacy and pharmaceutical enterprise lost no time in making the most of it.

How did Fauci respond to these troubling developments? He covered his ears and screamed REEEE. 

Speaking on C-SPAN in January 2018, America’s favorite doctor regurgitated his demonstrably false and depraved talking points about Tamiflu:

Even though it isn’t the perfect medication, it can really mitigate and prevent you from going on to more serious complications. So if you have the flu, and you get Tamiflu, you could prevent getting a serious complication, like a decrease of the hospitalization, decrease in dead. So there are benefits, even though it isn’t the perfect antiviral. 

So Tamiflu went from reducing the length of symptoms by less than two days, to bringing people back from the dead? And he said this in 2018 – years after Tamiflu was exposed as basically useless, and perhaps even dangerous.

Hilariously, Fauci made these completely evidence-starved remarks six months after the World Health Organization quietly removed Tamiflu from its “core” medicines list for combatting influenza. 

Which brings us to the present day. 

Fauci is now synonymous with Science. But what happened to Tamiflu? Roche is currently being sued for $1.5 billion for defrauding the US government by misrepresenting the alleged effectiveness of its hugely profitable drug. 

Meanwhile, Roche has received another FDA-issued Emergency Use Authorization – this time for a Covid-19 PCR test. 

At least it doesn’t cause heart failure. Probably.

Riley Waggaman is Anti-Empire’s Moscow Correspondent

 

Every American knows and cherishes Dr. Anthony Fauci. He’s the kind man on television who issues daily instructions about what must be done to prevent immediate death everywhere: Toddlers should be ‘double-diapered’ to ensure that nothing unsanitary comes out of their mouth-holes, etc. etc.

As director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical advisor to the president, Fauci has used his remarkable administrative capabilities to funnel vast sums of taxpayer dollars into programs and initiatives that have shielded the public from the flu-like horrors of coronavirus. 

But has he always possessed such superhuman pandemic-response skills? Let us briefly survey his distinguished career as Chief Virus Fighter to see if we might be able to answer this serpentine riddle. 

Fifteen years ago, Fauci was summoned by the media to explain what the United States was going to do about the ‘bird flu’ crisis. What was bird flu? It was one of the worst potential pandemics in human history, with the World Health Organization projecting 7.4 million deaths globally as a “best-case scenario”. (They were close: Over a period of two years, around 150 people died from the scary flu strain, but that figure doesn’t include the innumerable Vietnamese farmers who starved to death after millions of their chickens were forcibly culled by health authorities.)

Everyone was understandably worried but luckily Fauci had a solution: Let’s load up on Tamiflu. Developed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche, the antiviral drug was widely hailed for its life-saving properties after it was credited with successfully quelling a bird flu outbreak among Dutch farmers in 2003. 

During an appearance on C-SPAN in October 2005, Fauci claimed that the United States was “as prepared or better prepared than any other country” to deal with the impending mass casualty event, although he stressed that America’s survival would depend on more than just Tamiflu. 

“Vaccines, Tamiflu, public health measures, surveillance capabilities – things like that,” Fauci said, explaining what would be used to beat back the avian plague once it reached America’s shores.

He also elaborated on the health benefits of Roche’s wonder drug, claiming that it could "decrease the number of days of symptoms of the standard seasonal flu." If taken regularly as a prophylaxis, Tamiflu could even prevent infection, Fauci claimed. 

While acknowledging that there was no conclusive data showing that Tamiflu was effective against bird flu, Fauci stated that “we assume it will work” and that “there’s a reasonable assumption that it will work.”

Curiously, Fauci was less optimistic about Tamiflu’s bird flu-fighting powers when he was called to testify before the House Committee on International Relations just three months later, in January 2006. 

As NPR reported at the time, he still supported stockpiling enormous amounts of Tamiflu – in fact, Fauci wanted enough pills to be able to medicate 25% of the country’s population. But, probably as a minor legal formality, he didn’t want lawmakers to get the wrong idea and view the drug as a silver bullet. 

“We have no hard scientific data of how well this antiviral will perform under the conditions of a pandemic,” he told Congress, adding: "What this antiviral does is diminish the duration of symptoms by approximately a day and a half.”

(As a quick aside: The NPR article also quoted Dr. Frederick Hayden of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who insisted that Tamiflu “can provide a great deal of benefit” if given to patients before they develop severe flu symptoms. Although the article doesn’t mention it, Hayden was a paid consultant for Roche until at least 2004. NPR has the best expert commentaries.)

Fast-foward to April 2009: In response to the “public health emergency” created by an outbreak of H1N1 ‘swine flu’, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for Tamiflu. Maybe you have heard of EUAs? They have become very trendy in the last year or so. 

Anyway, Roche received emergency approval to manufacture Tamiflu to “treat and prevent influenza in children under 1 year of age,” while GlaxoSmithKline was charged with pumping out a Tamiflu variant designed for adult consumption. 

On April 29 – two days after Tamiflu’s EUA was issued – Fauci once again graced Congress with his presence, this time testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. When asked to provide an update on America’s pricey treasure chest of Tamiflu, and whether it would be useful in defeating the new Swine Menace, Fauci said: “Thankfully, the currently circulating 2009 H1N1 flu virus is sensitive to the two major antiviral drugs in our Strategic National Stockpile, Tamiflu and Relenza [the name for ‘adult’ Tamiflu].”

In layman’s terms: Fauci told the US Senate that Tamiflu was still a powerful weapon in America’s anti-pandemic arsenal.

Fauci was insistent. In August 2009, he said that Tamiflu had proven benefits when battling influenza, and urged its use among high-risk groups, particularly infants and pregnant women:

This was just four months after Fauci briefed the Senate. But by then his Tamiflu narrative was already spiraling the sewage drain. 

It was really bad. So bad that the FDA directed Roche to state on the drug’s label: “Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.” 

The FDA explained that clinical trials for Tamiflu “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo.”

It wasn’t that Tamiflu was just borderline useless: There were also concerns, made public by the FDA, that the drug may be linked to potentially fatal heart problems. 

This is not really what you want to hear after spending $1.5 billion stockpiling Tamiflu over the past four years as part of the country’s pandemic preparedness plan. 

Does the Tamiflu Tale end here, with transparent fraud and heart failure? Nein. Things became discernably more embarrassing as reality caught up with Fauci’s “antiviral” pill-peddling.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a globally-respected independent medical research organization, revealed in 2014 that there was little or no evidence that Tamiflu was effective against influenza. For half a decade, Roche had hidden clinical trial data from the public. But once this information was reluctantly handed over, their miracle drug was exposed as snake oil.

It was bad: 

Tamiflu (the antiviral drug oseltamivir) shortens symptoms of influenza by half a day, but there is no good evidence to support claims that it reduces admissions to hospital or complications of influenza.

$1.5 billion for a pill that curtails symptoms by a whole 12 hours. That's more than 100% less effective than Fauci's already-underwhelming claim that Tamiflu reduces the length of flu symptoms by a whopping "day and a half.”

A year later, an article published by Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health (NIH) described Tamiflu’s fall from grace as a “fiasco” and urged for a return to evidence-based public health policy:

A cocktail of pandemic panic, publicity propaganda, and scientific misconduct turned a new medicine with only modest efficacy into a blockbuster. It appears that the multiple regulatory checks and balances gave way as science lost its primacy and pharmaceutical enterprise lost no time in making the most of it.

How did Fauci respond to these troubling developments? He covered his ears and screamed REEEE. 

Speaking on C-SPAN in January 2018, America’s favorite doctor regurgitated his demonstrably false and depraved talking points about Tamiflu:

Even though it isn’t the perfect medication, it can really mitigate and prevent you from going on to more serious complications. So if you have the flu, and you get Tamiflu, you could prevent getting a serious complication, like a decrease of the hospitalization, decrease in dead. So there are benefits, even though it isn’t the perfect antiviral. 

So Tamiflu went from reducing the length of symptoms by less than two days, to bringing people back from the dead? And he said this in 2018 – years after Tamiflu was exposed as basically useless, and perhaps even dangerous.

Hilariously, Fauci made these completely evidence-starved remarks six months after the World Health Organization quietly removed Tamiflu from its “core” medicines list for combatting influenza. 

Which brings us to the present day. 

Fauci is now synonymous with Science. But what happened to Tamiflu? Roche is currently being sued for $1.5 billion for defrauding the US government by misrepresenting the alleged effectiveness of its hugely profitable drug. 

Meanwhile, Roche has received another FDA-issued Emergency Use Authorization – this time for a Covid-19 PCR test. 

At least it doesn’t cause heart failure. Probably.

Riley Waggaman is Anti-Empire’s Moscow Correspondent

In a move that would primarily benefit the world’s largest economies and most bloated governments, the Biden administration has proposed that all the world’s countries agree to impose corporate taxes at a rate no lower than 15%. Biden also proposes punishing countries that don’t adopt the minimum, by imposing heavier taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered in those countries.

In describing the initiative, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen made her aim all too clear: “It is important to work with other countries to end the pressures of tax competition,” she said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Though we’re conditioned to view them as something else, taxes are prices—albeit ones associated with no small amount of coercion. In that light, Yellen’s public opposition to tax competition should be just as jarring as if a corporate CFO said “it’s important to work with other companies to end the pressures of price competition.”

Aside from being an act of imperious, central-planning arrogance, the U.S.-led drive to fix the minimum corporate price of government is just the latest example of government pursuing an activity that’s illegal for private actors.

Plan Aims to Make Biden Tax Hike More Palatable

It’s no coincidence that Biden’s proposal comes alongside his drive to hike the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. While that would still leave it below the 35% level where it stood before a GOP-led 2017 cut, it would weaken America’s position in international competition for corporate investment.

According to the Tax Foundation, Biden’s corporate tax increase would lift the U.S. federal-state combined rate to 32%, which would be the highest among the 38-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

To the extent it encourages companies to shift investments and operations to more tax-friendly locales, the tax hike would be at least partially self-defeating. Thus comes the Biden administration’s campaign for a 15% global minimum.

Notably, that rate wasn’t the administration’s first choice—it originally floated a 21% floor. The administration likely sees a 15% pact as a precedent-setting foundation for eventually pushing a higher minimum.

Begging credulity, Biden told reporters he wasn’t concerned that higher taxes could prompt U.S. companies to relocate. “There’s no evidence of that…that’s bizarre,” he said.

Though proposed as a global minimum, the initial focus is on persuading the G7 countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. Reuters has reported that G7 finance ministers will soon announce their commitment to the idea.

Plan Would Benefit Largest Governments at Expense of the Smallest

The sledding will get a lot tougher after moving beyond that group of the world’s wealthiest economic heavyweights to the G20, OECD and beyond.

Indeed, OECD member Ireland, which boasts a 12.5% corporate tax rate, has already declared its opposition to the scheme—a scheme that threatens to widen the divide between larger and smaller economies.

Smaller countries often use lower tax rates to heighten their appeal as they compete with larger, more advanced economies: The 24 largest European economies average a 20.8% corporate tax rate, compared to 14.5% for the 24 smallest.

Given Ireland’s 12.5% rate has spurred high-tech investment and prosperity in the country, it’s easy to see why it would promptly reject an invitation to surrender it for the benefit of the United States and other economic giants.

“We do have really significant reservations regarding a global minimum effective tax rate status at such a level that it means only certain countries, and certain size economies can benefit,” said Ireland finance minister Paschal Donohoe.

In a separate statement, the Irish government said could support a 12.5% minimum, “which is fair and within the ambit of healthy tax competition.”

Alas, to big-government proponents of a minimum corporate tax, “healthy tax competition” is an oxymoron: Yellen has decried a downtrend in corporate tax rates as a “30-year race to the bottom” that must be stopped.

Corporate Taxes Affect Everyone

Americans should be as hostile to a global minimum corporate tax as they would to a global minimum price for computer chips, lumber or steel. Higher corporate taxes mean businesses have less money to invest in new facilities, develop products, hire workers, pay dividends and command higher stock prices.

The ripple effect is potent. According to a study by the Organization for International Cooperation and Development, “corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."

Some will scoff at the idea that higher stock prices and dividends are good for the public. However, via 401(k) plans, IRAs, mutual funds and direct stock investments, 55% of Americans are corporate shareholders of one type or another

Though routinely vilified by demagoguing politicians, businesses are part of an economic ecosystem in which all of us live. When government increases the tax burden of either businesses or individuals, both groups are affected.

Feeding Washington’s Spending Addiction

Having said all that, let’s not let the latest tax debate divert our attention from an essential fact: The U.S. government doesn’t have a revenue problem—it has a spending problem. And it’s poised to grow even worse.

Biden has requested a staggering $6 trillion federal budget for the coming fiscal year—that’s nearly a third higher than pre-pandemic levels. As a percentage of GDP, the president’s plan for the coming decade would see sustained spending at levels unseen since World War II.

When that war ended, spending subsided. Today, as the government-exacerbated Covid-19 crisis winds down, Biden and congressional allies are proposing to spend even more, content to watch trillion dollar deficits become routine, and the federal debt mushroom even after hiking rates on individuals and businesses.

That’s the real race to the bottom, Ms. Yellen.

Source: Stark Realities

In a move that would primarily benefit the world’s largest economies and most bloated governments, the Biden administration has proposed that all the world’s countries agree to impose corporate taxes at a rate no lower than 15%. Biden also proposes punishing countries that don’t adopt the minimum, by imposing heavier taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered in those countries.

In describing the initiative, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen made her aim all too clear: “It is important to work with other countries to end the pressures of tax competition,” she said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Though we’re conditioned to view them as something else, taxes are prices—albeit ones associated with no small amount of coercion. In that light, Yellen’s public opposition to tax competition should be just as jarring as if a corporate CFO said “it’s important to work with other companies to end the pressures of price competition.”

Aside from being an act of imperious, central-planning arrogance, the U.S.-led drive to fix the minimum corporate price of government is just the latest example of government pursuing an activity that’s illegal for private actors.

Plan Aims to Make Biden Tax Hike More Palatable

It’s no coincidence that Biden’s proposal comes alongside his drive to hike the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. While that would still leave it below the 35% level where it stood before a GOP-led 2017 cut, it would weaken America’s position in international competition for corporate investment.

According to the Tax Foundation, Biden’s corporate tax increase would lift the U.S. federal-state combined rate to 32%, which would be the highest among the 38-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

To the extent it encourages companies to shift investments and operations to more tax-friendly locales, the tax hike would be at least partially self-defeating. Thus comes the Biden administration’s campaign for a 15% global minimum.

Notably, that rate wasn’t the administration’s first choice—it originally floated a 21% floor. The administration likely sees a 15% pact as a precedent-setting foundation for eventually pushing a higher minimum.

Begging credulity, Biden told reporters he wasn’t concerned that higher taxes could prompt U.S. companies to relocate. “There’s no evidence of that…that’s bizarre,” he said.

Though proposed as a global minimum, the initial focus is on persuading the G7 countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. Reuters has reported that G7 finance ministers will soon announce their commitment to the idea.

Plan Would Benefit Largest Governments at Expense of the Smallest

The sledding will get a lot tougher after moving beyond that group of the world’s wealthiest economic heavyweights to the G20, OECD and beyond.

Indeed, OECD member Ireland, which boasts a 12.5% corporate tax rate, has already declared its opposition to the scheme—a scheme that threatens to widen the divide between larger and smaller economies.

Smaller countries often use lower tax rates to heighten their appeal as they compete with larger, more advanced economies: The 24 largest European economies average a 20.8% corporate tax rate, compared to 14.5% for the 24 smallest.

Given Ireland’s 12.5% rate has spurred high-tech investment and prosperity in the country, it’s easy to see why it would promptly reject an invitation to surrender it for the benefit of the United States and other economic giants.

“We do have really significant reservations regarding a global minimum effective tax rate status at such a level that it means only certain countries, and certain size economies can benefit,” said Ireland finance minister Paschal Donohoe.

In a separate statement, the Irish government said could support a 12.5% minimum, “which is fair and within the ambit of healthy tax competition.”

Alas, to big-government proponents of a minimum corporate tax, “healthy tax competition” is an oxymoron: Yellen has decried a downtrend in corporate tax rates as a “30-year race to the bottom” that must be stopped.

Corporate Taxes Affect Everyone

Americans should be as hostile to a global minimum corporate tax as they would to a global minimum price for computer chips, lumber or steel. Higher corporate taxes mean businesses have less money to invest in new facilities, develop products, hire workers, pay dividends and command higher stock prices.

The ripple effect is potent. According to a study by the Organization for International Cooperation and Development, “corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."

Some will scoff at the idea that higher stock prices and dividends are good for the public. However, via 401(k) plans, IRAs, mutual funds and direct stock investments, 55% of Americans are corporate shareholders of one type or another

Though routinely vilified by demagoguing politicians, businesses are part of an economic ecosystem in which all of us live. When government increases the tax burden of either businesses or individuals, both groups are affected.

Feeding Washington’s Spending Addiction

Having said all that, let’s not let the latest tax debate divert our attention from an essential fact: The U.S. government doesn’t have a revenue problem—it has a spending problem. And it’s poised to grow even worse.

Biden has requested a staggering $6 trillion federal budget for the coming fiscal year—that’s nearly a third higher than pre-pandemic levels. As a percentage of GDP, the president’s plan for the coming decade would see sustained spending at levels unseen since World War II.

When that war ended, spending subsided. Today, as the government-exacerbated Covid-19 crisis winds down, Biden and congressional allies are proposing to spend even more, content to watch trillion dollar deficits become routine, and the federal debt mushroom even after hiking rates on individuals and businesses.

That’s the real race to the bottom, Ms. Yellen.

Source: Stark Realities

From August the French "health" pass will be required for hospitals. From October on it will also be required for children aged 12 and above. From September PCR testing will no longer be offered for free. Instead, there will be a €49 charge each time. The state is clear that the test no longer being free is precisely to make it more difficult to remain unvaccinated:

From autumn it will cost €49 for all people in France to get a PCR test without a prescription.

President Emmanuel Macron announced the new measure in a televised address last night (July 12).

The government hopes that introducing fees for tests which are not needed for medical reasons will encourage more people in France to get vaccinated.

The "health" pass is not only a requirement for patrons of eg cafes, museums and long-distance trains but also their employees. Employees who do not get vaccinated will have to spend €49 every three days on PCR testing, or their employers are obligated to suspend them without pay or pay heavy fines themselves. After 2 months of suspension, the employee can be fired.

An "interesting" situation indeed. The unvaccinated and their children will be made to jump through time-intensive hoops and spend €49 every time before they enter a hospital. But they will of course continue to be taxed to support these hospitals that they don't have equal access to.

This is not about shielding hospitals from a respiratory virus. First of all, statistically speaking a visitor is far more likely to catch a virus in a hospital than bring it there, which is why it has historically never been done. Secondly, if tests for COVID, then why not for any number of other contagious diseases? Thirdly, vaccination does not eliminate infections or transmissions, so why not require a PCR-negative from the vaccinated as well? And finally, why not keep them free of charge?

Apartheid, segregation, dhimmitude... call it what you want, but it's clear the unvaccinated French are the niggers, the tax cattle (rayah), the untouchables in Macron's New Technocratic Order —— invited to continue funding the system, but not offered even the meager rights and benefits the rest of the plebians enjoy.

From August the French "health" pass will be required for hospitals. From October on it will also be required for children aged 12 and above. From September PCR testing will no longer be offered for free. Instead, there will be a €49 charge each time. The state is clear that the test no longer being free is precisely to make it more difficult to remain unvaccinated:

From autumn it will cost €49 for all people in France to get a PCR test without a prescription.

President Emmanuel Macron announced the new measure in a televised address last night (July 12).

The government hopes that introducing fees for tests which are not needed for medical reasons will encourage more people in France to get vaccinated.

The "health" pass is not only a requirement for patrons of eg cafes, museums and long-distance trains but also their employees. Employees who do not get vaccinated will have to spend €49 every three days on PCR testing, or their employers are obligated to suspend them without pay or pay heavy fines themselves. After 2 months of suspension, the employee can be fired.

An "interesting" situation indeed. The unvaccinated and their children will be made to jump through time-intensive hoops and spend €49 every time before they enter a hospital. But they will of course continue to be taxed to support these hospitals that they don't have equal access to.

This is not about shielding hospitals from a respiratory virus. First of all, statistically speaking a visitor is far more likely to catch a virus in a hospital than bring it there, which is why it has historically never been done. Secondly, if tests for COVID, then why not for any number of other contagious diseases? Thirdly, vaccination does not eliminate infections or transmissions, so why not require a PCR-negative from the vaccinated as well? And finally, why not keep them free of charge?

Apartheid, segregation, dhimmitude... call it what you want, but it's clear the unvaccinated French are the niggers, the tax cattle (rayah), the untouchables in Macron's New Technocratic Order —— invited to continue funding the system, but not offered even the meager rights and benefits the rest of the plebians enjoy.

A woman in HCMC recently told me it would be very difficult for her mentally ill child and the whole family if they are forced to quarantine.

During the previous wave of infection, her neighborhood was placed under lockdown after a resident tested positive for Covid-19.

Fortunately, everyone in her family tested negative and so did not have to go to a government quarantine. But health workers had informed her that should anyone in her family test positive, her child would have to be quarantined too.

The child, unable to move or speak without assistance, has needed 24-hour care since birth.

"If forced to go into quarantine my child will probably die," the woman said, asking me if I had any solution.

I have looked up regulations on medical quarantine for children.

A document from the Ministry of Health merely says children under five can be isolated at home while those aged five to 15 would have to quarantine at government-run facilities. There are no separate provisions for disabled children.

The Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs has policies to support children staying at quarantine centers and those that test positive for Covid. They include fully covering treatment costs, provision of essential supplies and psychological support.

But from a professional perspective, I would like to add some equally important notes.

Children might be in the low-risk group for Covid, but its impact on their mental health is far from insignificant. A study in China found that children might experience psychological issues such as insecurity, having nightmares, anxiety, decreased appetite, sleep disturbance, fear of losing relatives, decreased attention span, and irritability.

It said 13-37 percent of children were affected.

In another study in the U.S., 40 percent of parents found that their children showed signs of stress and anxiety caused by being quarantined.

One of my patients, a middle school student studying in Europe, was severely affected mentally during the previous Covid wave. She went to the airport by herself with the intention of returning to Vietnam, but all flights were canceled. Alone, with no relatives by her side, she had a panic attack and had to be hospitalized for a while. Though her condition has improved, the psychological trauma is still affecting her daily life and ability to study.

And that is just the impact on normal children.

For disabled children, the impact is often more severe due to poor adaptability and a lack of supportive medical services amid the pandemic. The majority of children with autism often have violent reactions when placed in a new environment without a long period of preparation beforehand.

In the case of children with cerebral palsy, medical quarantine will clearly affect their and their families' daily lives, and put even more burden on the healthcare system, which is already overloaded due to the pandemic.

Many studies also found a number of other factors likely to trigger psychological and psychiatric disorders in children. Most notably, children without relatives by their side and children with parents suffering from stress and anxiety are more likely to be affected than children with "normal" parents.

Vietnam has so far quarantined over 4,000 children without relatives by their side. While there are no statistics on their mental health, I am afraid the number of children who must be psychologically affected is not small.

One of the important conditions to help children achieve mental stability is creating a quarantine and treatment environment similar to the environment they live in every day.

If possible, quarantining should be done in schools similar to ones the children go to. This is especially important for children of kindergarten age who would struggle in a military camp environment.

That is why I believe it is very important for teachers to participate in the fight against the pandemic. In addition to taking care of children onsite, teachers could also help them through online means. I know many passionate teachers that would be ready to organize online storytelling sessions for children during the pandemic.

Being able to meet and talk to parents or relatives on a regular basis could also help improve children's morale. Face-to-face visits that comply with anti-pandemic regulations or online meetings could be a solution, but the relatives need to remain calm during the visits so as not to spark anxiety in the children.

With my experience working at the Department of Psychology, Children's Hospital No.1, I believe that social workers could assist quarantined children together with health workers. They could play with the children, help them study, organize group activities for them, calm them down, and identify children with psychological issues so that they can receive help from experts.

Finally, arming the children with basic information about Covid could help protect them.

Like for the national program on HIV/AIDS prevention and control for children, documents compiled in the form of comics that include questions such as what Covid-19 is, how it spreads and why quarantine is necessary will be useful.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already compiled such documents, and these are provided for free on its website.

To return to the woman I mentioned earlier, I told her I had yet to find an answer in the case of her child and disabled children in general.

"What is the solution according to you?" I asked in return.

Her instant reply: "I just hope that if something happens, my child will be allowed to be quarantined at home so that we can take care."

Source: VN Express

A woman in HCMC recently told me it would be very difficult for her mentally ill child and the whole family if they are forced to quarantine.

During the previous wave of infection, her neighborhood was placed under lockdown after a resident tested positive for Covid-19.

Fortunately, everyone in her family tested negative and so did not have to go to a government quarantine. But health workers had informed her that should anyone in her family test positive, her child would have to be quarantined too.

The child, unable to move or speak without assistance, has needed 24-hour care since birth.

"If forced to go into quarantine my child will probably die," the woman said, asking me if I had any solution.

I have looked up regulations on medical quarantine for children.

A document from the Ministry of Health merely says children under five can be isolated at home while those aged five to 15 would have to quarantine at government-run facilities. There are no separate provisions for disabled children.

The Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs has policies to support children staying at quarantine centers and those that test positive for Covid. They include fully covering treatment costs, provision of essential supplies and psychological support.

But from a professional perspective, I would like to add some equally important notes.

Children might be in the low-risk group for Covid, but its impact on their mental health is far from insignificant. A study in China found that children might experience psychological issues such as insecurity, having nightmares, anxiety, decreased appetite, sleep disturbance, fear of losing relatives, decreased attention span, and irritability.

It said 13-37 percent of children were affected.

In another study in the U.S., 40 percent of parents found that their children showed signs of stress and anxiety caused by being quarantined.

One of my patients, a middle school student studying in Europe, was severely affected mentally during the previous Covid wave. She went to the airport by herself with the intention of returning to Vietnam, but all flights were canceled. Alone, with no relatives by her side, she had a panic attack and had to be hospitalized for a while. Though her condition has improved, the psychological trauma is still affecting her daily life and ability to study.

And that is just the impact on normal children.

For disabled children, the impact is often more severe due to poor adaptability and a lack of supportive medical services amid the pandemic. The majority of children with autism often have violent reactions when placed in a new environment without a long period of preparation beforehand.

In the case of children with cerebral palsy, medical quarantine will clearly affect their and their families' daily lives, and put even more burden on the healthcare system, which is already overloaded due to the pandemic.

Many studies also found a number of other factors likely to trigger psychological and psychiatric disorders in children. Most notably, children without relatives by their side and children with parents suffering from stress and anxiety are more likely to be affected than children with "normal" parents.

Vietnam has so far quarantined over 4,000 children without relatives by their side. While there are no statistics on their mental health, I am afraid the number of children who must be psychologically affected is not small.

One of the important conditions to help children achieve mental stability is creating a quarantine and treatment environment similar to the environment they live in every day.

If possible, quarantining should be done in schools similar to ones the children go to. This is especially important for children of kindergarten age who would struggle in a military camp environment.

That is why I believe it is very important for teachers to participate in the fight against the pandemic. In addition to taking care of children onsite, teachers could also help them through online means. I know many passionate teachers that would be ready to organize online storytelling sessions for children during the pandemic.

Being able to meet and talk to parents or relatives on a regular basis could also help improve children's morale. Face-to-face visits that comply with anti-pandemic regulations or online meetings could be a solution, but the relatives need to remain calm during the visits so as not to spark anxiety in the children.

With my experience working at the Department of Psychology, Children's Hospital No.1, I believe that social workers could assist quarantined children together with health workers. They could play with the children, help them study, organize group activities for them, calm them down, and identify children with psychological issues so that they can receive help from experts.

Finally, arming the children with basic information about Covid could help protect them.

Like for the national program on HIV/AIDS prevention and control for children, documents compiled in the form of comics that include questions such as what Covid-19 is, how it spreads and why quarantine is necessary will be useful.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has already compiled such documents, and these are provided for free on its website.

To return to the woman I mentioned earlier, I told her I had yet to find an answer in the case of her child and disabled children in general.

"What is the solution according to you?" I asked in return.

Her instant reply: "I just hope that if something happens, my child will be allowed to be quarantined at home so that we can take care."

Source: VN Express

Britain on Tuesday said it would permanently deploy two warships in Asian waters after its Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and escort ships sail to Japan in September through seas where China is vying for influence with the United States and Japan.

Plans for the high-profile visit by the carrier strike group come as London deepens security ties with Tokyo, which has expressed growing alarm in recent months over China’s territorial ambitions in the region, including Taiwan.

“Following on from the strike group’s inaugural deployment, the United Kingdom will permanently assign two ships in the region from later this year,” defence minister Ben Wallace said in a joint announcement in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart Nobuo Kishi.

After their arrival in Japan, Kishi said, the Queen Elizabeth and its escort ships would split up for separate port calls to US and Japanese naval bases along the Japanese archipelago.

In a statement on the deployment, a Pentagon spokesperson congratulated Britain for its “commitment to an interconnected network of allies and partners, who mutually cooperate and support freedom of navigation and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region”.

A close US ally, Japan hosts the biggest concentration of US military forces outside the US, including ships, aircraft and thousands of Marines.

The British carrier, which is carrying F-35B stealth jets on its maiden voyage, will dock at Yokosuka, the home of Japan’s fleet command and the USS Ronald Reagan, the only forward deployed US aircraft carrier.

The British ships will not have a permanent base, a spokesperson at the British Embassy in Tokyo said when asked which ports the Royal Navy ships would operate from.

The Queen Elizabeth is being escorted by two destroyers, two frigates, two support vessels and ships from the US and the Netherlands.

It will come to Japan through the South China Sea, parts of which are claimed by China and Southeast Asian countries, with stops in India, Singapore and South Korea.

In a further sign of Britain’s growing regional engagement, Wallace, who travelled to Japan with a delegation of military commanders, said the UK would also eventually deploy a Littoral Response Group, a unit of marines trained to undertake missions including evacuations and anti-terrorism operations.

Source: South China Morning Post

Britain on Tuesday said it would permanently deploy two warships in Asian waters after its Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and escort ships sail to Japan in September through seas where China is vying for influence with the United States and Japan.

Plans for the high-profile visit by the carrier strike group come as London deepens security ties with Tokyo, which has expressed growing alarm in recent months over China’s territorial ambitions in the region, including Taiwan.

“Following on from the strike group’s inaugural deployment, the United Kingdom will permanently assign two ships in the region from later this year,” defence minister Ben Wallace said in a joint announcement in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart Nobuo Kishi.

After their arrival in Japan, Kishi said, the Queen Elizabeth and its escort ships would split up for separate port calls to US and Japanese naval bases along the Japanese archipelago.

In a statement on the deployment, a Pentagon spokesperson congratulated Britain for its “commitment to an interconnected network of allies and partners, who mutually cooperate and support freedom of navigation and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region”.

A close US ally, Japan hosts the biggest concentration of US military forces outside the US, including ships, aircraft and thousands of Marines.

The British carrier, which is carrying F-35B stealth jets on its maiden voyage, will dock at Yokosuka, the home of Japan’s fleet command and the USS Ronald Reagan, the only forward deployed US aircraft carrier.

The British ships will not have a permanent base, a spokesperson at the British Embassy in Tokyo said when asked which ports the Royal Navy ships would operate from.

The Queen Elizabeth is being escorted by two destroyers, two frigates, two support vessels and ships from the US and the Netherlands.

It will come to Japan through the South China Sea, parts of which are claimed by China and Southeast Asian countries, with stops in India, Singapore and South Korea.

In a further sign of Britain’s growing regional engagement, Wallace, who travelled to Japan with a delegation of military commanders, said the UK would also eventually deploy a Littoral Response Group, a unit of marines trained to undertake missions including evacuations and anti-terrorism operations.

Source: South China Morning Post